I think this is a very in-depth, informative story that does not dwell on Hasan's religion, but simultaneously presents the question of whether this was a religiously based act of terrorism. The video clip is a powerful touch as well.

Why does this article end so abruptly? I looked around trying to find the next page button. Does it really end with the sentence about suicide? If so, the author should have reconsidered her closing. I would also like to see quotes from soldiers in the article to provide more of heart wrenching story.

I feel like a lot of puzzle pieces are missing from this story. I don't know if it was poorly translated from Russian or if it just has a certain disconnect about it. The story just seemed random and lacking in depth information and purpose. It leaves the reader without an answer to "so what?"

The author has not done enough research on benefits of not getting vaccinated/ alternatives to getting vaccinated that may be more effective than a vaccine. The author says herself: "Even with medical progress, there are two guarantees with influenza: 1. The virus mutates--always. It may become milder, or it may become more virulent. There is no way to predict this in advance." If you get a vaccination you are not protecting yourself from mutations of the virus.... You are only protecting yourself from one strand. A virus will be more likely to mutate when there is resistance to the original form of the virus. This article needs some further investigation and review before being a credible news piece.

This is the worst you "informative" you tube video I have ever seen! It's funny if you watch it as a joke... and laugh at how absurd it is. Definitely not news.

The tone of this piece is just so snooty and I think the author should get off his high horse. I find his argument that Fox takes a right-wing stance less credible simply because of his tone. I would also like to have some straight forward examples of when and how Fox news has been biased, not because I disagree with him but so I could have an intelligent comment on what makes Fox biased.

I'm confused as to why this article goes under "news" when it seems like it's the author's own opinion. There are no sources. It is unclear whether the author spoke with anyone else to come to these conclusions. I really don't consider this story to be news at all. There also is no rebuttal from the immigrants he is directing this at. He states at the beginning that he is giving a "lecture" but even lectures have sources and facts to attribute the information to. Who is the author and why should I believe anything he is saying? I'm confused as to why this piece is supposed to be newsworthy.

I loved this op-ed piece. I'm unfamiliar with op-ed and I wanted to read it to get ideas for how to write my own, and I definitely picked the write story. Bono has a charming, sassy voice throughout the piece but he is making important points and asking for a call to action. He is not just praising President Obama for his nobel peace prize, he is articulating that the prize is a way to make a difference and make America care about the rest of the world again. I would highly recommend this story to anyone, I found it fun to read and inspiring.

This is a really interesting story with a nice bonus feature- the video clip. It gives a real reason to be concerned for rises in global temperatures.

I didn't understand most of this story, to be honest. I don't know if it's because I don't know much about the subject matter, but I was still very confused about what had been decided about US secret keeping by the end of the article.

This story provides multiple examples to make its point and doesn't just give one side of the story. The examples successfully illustrate the points the story is making and are relevant to the audience.

I think this article is extremely relevant for us today because of the financial crisis. I had no idea that some government officials knew those banks were in financial trouble, and It's outrageous that someone knew and didn't do anything about it before the banks needed huge amounts of money. What I didn't understand is why this article said "the watchdog"- who or what is the source? Why can't the public have a name?

Every Facebook user should read this article and take the privacy precautions they recommend. The author goes through each step, telling you how and where to find the special tabs you need to click on in order to make your profile as private or open as you want.

I thought this was a really great article. It is relevant to today's technologically advanced society and it provides really interesting insight into the ways in which computers fall short of the human brain and how people are trying to make computers more "human". I'm really interested in the human psyche and I think this article ties in the complexities of human nature and speech patterns (i.e. sarcasm) that can't necessarily be recognized by computers, even if they are "trained" to look for those subtleties.

I like the fact that this article is concise and to the point, but it doesn't do a great job explaining why Iran decided to replace the dollar, and what this means for the United States. I am not very familiar with how Iran and the US conduct transactions or what currency they use in Iran, so I was confused about whether Iran is only using the Euro now or whether they only let countries buy things from them with the Euro. I understand that the Euro is stronger than the dollar so it makes sense that Iran would want to get paid in Euros instead of the weaker American dollar.